People. Wildlife. Conservation.

Ted Reilly: A Living Legend. By Martin Dunn.

Ted Reilly was familiar to me long before I
actually met him; as one of the legendary figures of wildlife conservation in
Southern Africa; spoken of with respect and reverence alongside other greats
like Ted Davison, Ian Player, John Hanks and Clive Stockil.

Just as Ian Player is credited with almost
single handedly saving South Africa’s white rhino population, so Ted Reilly is
regarded as the father and icon of conservation in Eswatini (formerly
Swaziland). Ted has worked for decades to conserve existing animals and
reintroduce those which had gone locally extinct – thanks to his efforts, 22
species of mammals have been reintroduced to Swaziland, from the blue duiker to
the elephant.

His efforts have enabled generations of Swazis
to enjoy their country’s wild areas and wildlife.

To visit Eswatini’s Mlilwane Wildlife
Sanctuary, one of Ted’s creations, is a revelation. During the week, bus loads
of local Swazi school children are brought in to enjoy this wild space; at
weekends Swazi families and young couples come for a day out; to cycle, walk
and picnic. By comparison, the number of foreign visitors is small.

This is in stark contrast to most other
wildlife reserves in Africa. One of the most depressing things about visiting
wildlife reserves in most African countries is that so few of the visitors are
from the local population. Whether it is the cost of entry or just
indifference, this does not bode well for the future of Africa’s wildlife.

I do not doubt the commitment of those working
to protect and conserve it, but if those living alongside Africa’s wildlife see
themselves as being excluded from a portion of their own country because it has
been designated as an area for photo-tourism, and the cost of entry is beyond
their means, they are unlikely to embrace conservation.

The only other African country where I have
seen domestic visitors to wildlife reserves outnumber the foreigners is South
Africa. Yet, rather than being hailed as a country that has managed to engage
its population in the conservation effort, it is lambasted by many as ‘not the
real Africa’.

If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny; foreigners – all wildlife experts of course – from Europe and the USA telling Africans that their country is ‘not the real Africa’.

It seems that for them countries that are forging their own path and taking control of their own destiny are not the ‘real Africa’. To them the ‘real Africa’ is not a thriving democracy, confident to make its own way, it is rather an Africa they can bend to their will, dependent on foreign aid and willing to be told how to manage their own country and its wildlife.

Haven’t we learned anything from centuries of western exploitation of and interference in Africa?

Surely we are long past the time when this kind of patronising approach to Africa is acceptable.

‘Real
Africa’ or not, the success of wildlife conservation in Southern Africa is very
real.

Southern
Africa operates under a model where wildlife has been endowed with private
ownership and its commercialization has been legalized. The result in South
Africa is that the numbers of wild animals has increased 20 fold in the last 50
years, while natural conserved habitats designated to conservation have
increased 3 times.

There
are today more wild animals on private land than there are in National and
Provincial Parks collectively. By contrast Kenya, Africa’s perceived iconic
wildlife Mecca, has lost 80% of her wildlife estate over the same period of
time after banning commercialization and consumptive use of wildlife.

Anyway, I digress. Back to Ted Reilly.

The opportunity to meet Ted Reilly and hear
him speak came when I was invited to attend the launch of a campaign by
Eswatini to persuade those attending the next CITES conference, scheduled for
May 2019 in Colombo, Sri Lanka, to lift a 41 year ban on the trade in rhino
horn.

In a packed marquee that brought together
members of the Eswatini government, foreign ambassadors, local businessmen and
rangers from the country’s wildlife department it was abundantly clear that
there was one man who commanded the respect of everyone present.

Ted’s presentation was eloquent and forceful;
there could be no doubting his passion and commitment to see an injustice put
right.

This campaign is not Ted’s alone, he enjoys the whole-hearted
support of Eswatini’s Head of State, His Majesty King Mswati III, Ngwenyama of
the Kingdom of Eswatini.

It is this level of support that has enabled Eswatini to achieve
the finest anti-poaching rhino conservation record in Africa and Ted is quick
to acknowledge that the single most essential ingredient necessary to contain
poaching is political will at Head of State level.

So what is this campaign about?

The debate on legalising the trade in rhino
horn has raged for years, with passionate advocates on both sides, yet the
facts are inescapable:

In
1960 there are said to have been 100 000 black rhinos in Africa. The CITES ban was imposed in 1977 and now,
41 years later, despite the CITES trade ban – which was put in place to protect
them – there are now 5 000 black rhinos left in Africa. Currently more than 1 000 rhinos are being killed annually by horn poachers. So
the ban is clearly not working and the illegal trade continues. So does the
slaughter of rhinos that feeds it.

The
enormous decline of Africa’s rhinos has occurred in spite of the billions of US
dollars donated by generous donors to NGOs which have been set up to save
endangered species.

As
Dr. George Hughes (zoologist and former head of Natal Parks Board) said
recently –

“We
have lost over 100 000 rhino in Africa since that ban, so you have to be out of
your mind to think it has been a success.”

Another inescapable fact is that conservation
is an expensive business, very expensive indeed.

As Dr John Hanks (former director of the Africa
program for WWF) observed,

“There
is not a single conservation agency in Africa which is not cash strapped and
short of funds.”

Protecting
rhinos is prohibitively expensive and is becoming too costly and risky for many
custodians to continue doing. Yet some conservation agencies are sitting on the
most valuable self-renewing resource on earth which they are prevented from
utilizing by CITES. This resource is rhino horn.

Rhino
horn can be harvested sustainably on an ongoing basis without killing a rhino,
because the horn keeps growing even after harvesting and its removal from the
rhino is painless.

Rhino
horn is worth around 60,000 US Dollars per kilogram on the black market, where
to obtain it, the rhino will die. But it has no legal commercial value at all
because legal trade in horn is banned.

This
is both tragic and entirely avoidable.

A
rhino does not have to die for its horn to be removed legally, and repeatedly.

The
average horn weighs approximately 4kg giving it an illegal value of 240,000 US
Dollars. This makes a dead rhino far more valuable than a live rhino and gives
criminal organisations a monopoly on trade. That is how nonsensical the ban on
horn trade is.

As
things stand, criminals take all the revenues from rhino horn – and the rhinos
have to die, while custodians pay all the costs of protection, with no prospect
of earning revenue to offset their costs.

This
has resulted in some 300,000 hectares of habitat formerly available to rhinos
being withdrawn from rhino conservation, because the cost of keeping and
protecting them has become too risky and too costly.

It is fashionable now, in trendy conservation
cliques, to dismiss these great men as yesterday’s heroes, effective in their
day but out of step with modern conservation.

The debt that Southern Africa’s wildlife owes
these men cannot be dismissed so lightly, no matter how much it would suit some
of those who would rather fire up your emotions with rhetoric and propaganda
than work with proven facts.

These people, who argue that a legal trade in
rhino horn; one that would ensure that Africa’s remaining rhinos are worth more
alive than dead, would encourage the illegal trade; who argue that to legalise
rhino horn as a commodity would reduce rhinos to the status of a farmed animal;
who argue that conservation should not be monetised in such a way; these are
the very people who urge us to donate our own cash to their cause; in effect to
pay their wages.

How are they anything other than mercenaries?
And how can they, who take their own salaries from your donations before a
single penny goes to the cause they are espousing, be so dismissive of people
who have worked their entire lives to save Africa’s wildlife and who have
strived to do it in a way that is sustainable.

These people regard the ‘sustainable’ as a
dirty word, yet it is the only reliable long term option. If it is to survive,
Africa’s conservation efforts must ultimately be sustainable (self-funding)
rather than being dependent on the philanthropy of others in far away lands;
Philanthropy that can be stopped on a whim.

Another
argument that is regularly trotted out is that “until we eliminate corruption”,
legalizing the trade would be dangerous and open the way for contraband to
enter the legal trade. Of course it will – to the extent that it is allowed to
happen – but to suggest that we don’t try a legal trade in rhino horn to
compete with the rampant illegal trade already in place until we have
eliminated corruption is naïve in the extreme.

Realistically
we will never eliminate corruption. Police forces have been in place since
societies began but we still live with corruption and crime. We all have to live with corruption because
it is plainly and very simply a fact of life.

Can
you think of any other instance where we have said that we should not engage in
legal trade until we have eliminated the illegal trade? I cannot.

There
are many commodities or products that are stolen and sold illegally – cars,
cigarettes, designer clothing, alcohol, jewellery, TV’s, the list is endless.
Money itself is stolen and laundered We
don’t ban the sale of any of these products nor do we ban the use of money.
Instead we develop ways of countering its illegal use; surely we can do the
same with horn.

If
we accept corruption as being a valid reason for not trying legal trade – we
might as well all give up and go home because corruption and crime are here to
stay and there will always be criminals.

It
would be one hell of an indictment on all of us if we allow rhinos to go
extinct without having tried everything possible to save them, including a
legal trade in rhino horn.

How
long will it be before African countries are allowed to manage their own
wildlife areas, as they wish, without interference and pressure from NGOs and
foreign governments?

How
long will it be before countries that have all but wiped out their own wildlife
cease thinking they have a right to tell Africans how to manage theirs?

About
140 years ago, in the USA, native bison had all but been wiped out by buffalo
hunters. Now, brought back from the brink of extinction, bison are farmed for
their meat. How then, can the USA claim the moral high ground and argue against
similar measure to prevent one of Africa’s iconic species going extinct?

It
makes no sense at all.

Going
forward; unless we are content to let conservation – and by extension the
enjoyment of wildlife in its natural habitat – evolve into the preserve of a
wealthy elite a way must be found for the conservation of wildlife to be
sustainable, and by sustainable I mean self-financing.

It
can be done. The vast majority of animals are not targeted by poachers for
their meat or body parts and will happily exist in national parks or wildlife
reserves that very closely resemble their natural habitat. I say ‘very closely
resemble’ simply because the boundaries around national parks and wildlife
reserves restrict the habitat in a way that is not natural.

The
vast majority of animals are not the problem; the problem lies with a few
iconic species that are targeted by ruthless people – the poachers are just the
tip of the iceberg; the visible part of a much larger organisation.

Vast
amounts of money are expended to try and protect these species across the
continent of Africa, yet in only a very few cases can we say that the battle is
being won.

Some
of this money comes from governments, some comes from philanthropy – large
donations from wealthy individuals or an accumulation of small donations from
concerned members of the public.

It
is not a secure source of finance and could easily be shut off on a whim.

So
why, when a way presents itself for the conservation of one of these iconic
species to be sustainable – self-funding – is it so readily shouted down?

Why,
instead of celebrating the fact that, if properly managed and controlled, rhinos could be worth more alive than dead,
are so many people and organisations that claim to be committed to saving this
iconic Africa species fighting so hard to prevent it being allowed?

The
fact that rhino horn can be collected without the need to kill the animal
should mean that ensuring their survival is a no-brainer.
Can we really be so petty as to let Africa’s rhinos become extinct simply
because we objected to the fact that someone might make money from selling the
horns? As things stand, when those horns are poached and sold the money goes to
greedy businessmen and the rhino is dead.